February 7, 2010

Is that a "cheat sheet" or "crib notes"? It might be a little silly to have writing on your hand, and it's definitely awkward to look at your hand in the middle of answering a question, but those few words could hardly be of much help if you actually don't know what you are talking about.

My favorite detail is "[Budget] Cuts". Which just about sums up the real Tea Party agenda on spending. But it also suggests that she was told in advance of the questions she would be asked, one of which was what would be you priorities if you were elected president? Now think about this: she had to write on her hand her priorities as president.

Well, she had "budget" crossed out, so if that sums it the Tea Party agenda, she doesn't share it. "Cuts" is still there, so it makes a lot more sense to assume it goes with "tax," as in: tax cuts. But what the hell? Make stuff up. Like the theory that she was told "the questions" in advance. And she had the answer to one question written on her hand? Of course, she had the words on her hand for some reason. I think the most obvious theory is that these were themes she could always find a way to, whatever the question. When in doubt, bring it around to your specialty, energy, go with the main theme tax cuts, or fall back on lifting America's spirits — some of that good old Morning-in-America/Hope-and-Change inspiration that people lap up so gratefully.

Andrew "Ellsworth Toohey" Sullivan wants Sarah Palin to care about him. And I hope she goes the Howard Rourke way and ignores him. The rest of us can criticize Sullivan for his on going obession with Palin.

The use of palm-notes is pathetic. It leads me to think of Sarah Palin as the second-coming of W., with all his public stupidity and awkwardness. Shame that the conservatives cannot find anyone better to lead them under their newly-refreshed banner. Shame, shame, shame...

That's why God invented note cards. He, in His Glory, also invented those little yellow thingies with sticky stuff on the back-- and it was in fact Divine, no matter what fiction is put forth in that Romy & Michele movie. Use one of those. If you write on your hand you look like a third-grader.

I would assume she and her people knew she was going to be raked over the coals, every defect pointed out, so they decided to put those notes on her hand on purpose. She probably made a point of looking at her hand so openly so others would notice. Now the media will talk even more than they normally would about Palin. What was written on her hand? Did it match what she said when talking? What messages was she so desperate to communicate?

On the other hand, heh, how difficult is it to remember those three things?

But then on the other other hand, it's better than "left"

And on the other other other hand it does give the likes of AL a little turd to drop in comments throughout the blogosphere, as in the WP post down there ↓. (thank you for learning the link HTML, but I still don't bother looking.)

Yeah, Julius, it's much more impressive to read a canned stump speech off a prompter... look at the left screen. Read a line. Pause. Look at the right screen. Read another line. Point importantly. Repeat to end.

I knew a brilliant harpsichordist who could infuse great passion into music played on that cold instrument, but was utterly lost, and literally couldn't play, without a score on the stand. Then, there is the phenomenon of the musical idiot savant, which might be an extreme instantiation of this general case.

On the other hand, I've known no end of brilliant jazzmen and popular musicians who can't read music.

Thank heaven for Julius, or I'd have missed who the idiot savants are supposed to be. Thank heaven for people who went to mo' eliter schools than poor ole public school me.

Run, Sarah, run. Your speeches make absolutely no sense. When you do the Q and A your answers make no sense.

BTW the criticism of Obama concerning the teleprompter, I guess he dashed those criticisms when he talked off the cuff to the Republicans at their Q and A. I am not a fan but he sure looked good, talked and actually answered questions. I know in the age of Palin and Limbaugh that this may not look like much, but it is.

You all keep supporting her and getting her to run for office and we will definitely have 4 more years of democrats in the White House.

I think we're supposed to be impressed with how "real" she is, scribbling notes on her hand like a busy multi-tasking mom with little time who's trying to take care of the important stuff in her day. Like Energy. And Tax. And Lifting American Spirits. Just a checklist of things to get done before her head hits the pillow. I would have been more impressed if it had said Diapers, Call Tripp and Gas Bill. That would have been real.

Ag, the problem is that her speech was on the teleprompter and she read it. The crib notes were for talking points to get the crowd all riled up. Preaching to her choir, doesn't take much to arouse your supporters. Lets see how she does in a "real" environment, with people who actually hold beliefs different from hers. She will fold like a newspaper. What is it, you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time. True dat!

Identifying how bad Palin appears implies no support for Obama. Why must everything be a comparison? Can't an opinion be stated about a Republican without having to invoke the idea that Democrats are worse?

She did a decent job. Her speech was on note cards, not a teleprompter. Many of the themes last night were hit at the Salina speech the night before. She still has to work on getting some of the money quotes down smoother. She said Alaska when she likely meant America. And yes, she wrote six words on her left hand to keep herself on track. This will likely turn into her campaign speech for 2010, so we will hear it again. (EDH, she crossed out "budget" (cuts) and wrote "tax cuts".)

Why is it moronic to write notes on your hand? My wife does this--it's a habit from childhood, but it works for her. Also, people who think it's dumb to go off notes have probably never done any public speaking. It's an effective technique to break up your speech into chunks and then rely on a broad outline to roadmap your speech. Most likely there's no need to have written reminders, but psychologically it's nice to have. And why the hand? It's generally less obvious than carrying a notecard around.

Of course, I'm sure she would have gotten less criticism if she just recited the speech verbatim from teleprompters. Or maybe even lip-synched!

It is amazing that the crowd that nominated and voted for John Edwards, and who advocated for him four years later, including attacking those who saw Edwards for what he truly is from the beginning, it is amazing that they still believe that they have the slightest bit of credibility left and that people should actually listen to what they have to say.

The speech wasn't bad. It was majorly pep-rally-ish, but that's more or less the point of a speech like that.

More than once, and right at the beginning, she urged people to support those candidates with the core Tea Party principles even if there were other areas of disagreement. She repeated this at the end.

And she encouraged primary challenges as good and necessary to the democratic process.

She's smart, because she's right about that being the place where the most change can happen and the most influence can be applied to local candidates.

I thought her remarks, afterward, about how actions that erode trust in government are bad, such as pretending or promising bipartisanship on issues where bipartisanship is not possible, lead people to distrust everything else, too. She sees how actions on one thing affect the attitudes people have on everything and how that matters to leadership. Don't make promises you can't keep because it erodes trust.

That ties in with what she said about foreign policy and leaving allies in the lurch while attempting to woo others.

She's got a better native understanding of leadership principles than even her fans give her credit for.

I've taught a 3 hour class (economics, management, operations, other topics, packaging) once a week pretty much continuously since 1982.

I also speak at public conferences, usually for an hour, 4-6 times a year.

Long ago I found that if I didn't have any notes at all, I could not remember what I wanted to talk about and in what order.

But, if I had detailed notes, I would basically just read them and I am not that good a reader.

For my classes, I prepare lecture notes that are usually 6-10 pages long. They are in 16 point type, double spaced, 2" left and right margin.

They just have bullet points to remind me what to say. If I am going to quote specific data, that will be in there to prevent screwing it up. If I am going to work a problem on the board, that will be in there with all steps shown.

All the rest of it is words, phrases and sentence fragments to keep me on track.

I'd never thought to write it on my hand, but I may try that next time.

I also, whenever I am in a large parking lot, especially with a rental car, write the location on my hand so I can find it again.

John Henrywww.changeover.com

wv: Trable "Alpha Liberal doesn't like Palin, She is in real trable now!"

"Article ID: Q0030360Published on October 15, 1990, The Washington Times{PUBLICATION2}

No Headline

S=NEW STORY

Never mind the lips or hips; read her hand

First it was a Republican president from California who was getting advice from a San Francisco astrologer; now it's a Democratic candidate for governor from San Francisco who's into palm reading.

Dianne Feinstein was caught red-handed reading a palm - her own - during yesterday's televised debate with her GOP rival, Sen. Pete Wilson. Republicans claimed this was a violation of the [debate rules]"

Clearly, Ms. Feinstein is a moron undeserving of high office. Right, Zachary and Julius?

When I was a performing musician, I would sometimes have to do a set of half an hour, take a break, another set, take a break etc.

To keep me (and the others who may be playing if we were in a group) I would write the 'play list' and some alternates. This was taped to the back of my guitar. It was easy to get lost, especially when distracted by special requests....and ahem...alcohol.

If it was a new song with some intricate chording, I would also crib some notes on the paper so I could refresh myself on the sequence right on the stage.

That being said.....writing on your hand three bullet points that you should know by heart by this time, is pretty dumb.

TELEPROMPTER IN A GRADE SCHOOL. Who gives two shits about scribbling a few words on your hand? Back in my debauchery-ridden youth I would do this. Usually it had the words 'tits' or 'ass' though. OK, I'm done now.

In my shop, I have a message board that you can write on with an erasable grease pencil. Below that is a cork surface with all kinds of business cards held on with tacs. The words "F drill bit" is posted there presently. I'm a cheater and grifter.

those few words could hardly be of much help if you actually don't know what you are talking about.

Precisely, she wanted to hit a few specific points and scribbled them down. I've done the same and most of the people commenting here have also probably done it, including the likes of Alpha, Zach, and victoria.

rollingdivision's point is the more important. Miss Sarah does a speech off 3x5 cards with a couple of high points on her palm and the Lefties belch out their Kos-manufactured sneers.

Barry, the Second Coming with Talent on loan from Mao, reads a speech with the word "corpsman" clearly printed and he calls it "corpseman", and we're supposed to believe he's a "sort of God". Or is this like the finger he sort-of gave Hillary and then McCain?

From Inwood said...

Hey, not to worry. Obama would mispronounce any patriotic "crib notes" he wrote on his hand or teleprompter.

to people who would call her "stupid" or an "idiot" are absolutely dense. every single person has used their hand to jot down quick notes and reminders.

as a resident physician, I scribble numbers and reminders on my hand all the time (vitals, labs to follow up on, conferences not to forget, etc). while I may indeed have my pockets full of notecards and a PDA to boot, even us dummy doctors resort to primitive means of writing some quick notes on our hand - keeps me on track sometimes with what I really don't want to forget.

bottom line, we've all done it, and will do it again. people need to choose their battles with this woman carefully, because jabs at her about this are completly dense and empty at the same time...

...especially if I were simply reminding myself to hit on "energy, taxes, and lifting the American spirit".

maybe Obama could adopt this approach and scribble some basic math equations on his hand to understand our budget.

No doubt Obama has done the same thing. I am sure he's scribbled catch phrases on his palm (for those rare times he is separated from the TOTUS) such as "White people's greed runs a world in need" and "God damn America".

When Rahm used the word 'retard' in a private meeting once she asks for him to be fired. When Limbaugh uses the word numerous times on the public airwaves she excuses it. [Just this morning on FOX].

I was on this site last week when a number of you claimed the R word was similar to the N word. Clearly, some of you don't really believe that or mean what you say. As I wrote in an earlier comment; it is all political. No one really cares if the word retard is used. They only care if when it is used it can be used as a political weapon against an opponent.

Why I Still Watch Palin Like A Hawk: [Palin's] ability to lie and lie and lie and get away with it, her indisputable charisma and sex appeal, and her fathomless ignorance make her a rogue indeed.

That's Queen Mary Jane Milky Loads. One wishes he would turn his "scrutiny" towards someone who "lie[s] and get[s] away with it," who has "indisputable charisma and sex appeal," and who has demonstrated "fathomless ignorance" AND who actually has political power, namely, Barack Hussein Obama.

I don't know what Milky Loads's obsession with Palin demonstrates more: his hatred of women or his homoerotic desire for Obama.

LilyBart, the hand wasn't the speech notes - AFAICT, she used a teleprompter for the speech just like almost everyone does. The hand notes were for the informal Q&A discussion. What most people find silly, is their being the sort of basics a person should internalize if that's what they believe in. Even then, she could have put that on a pad with some extra development.

There's also the rambling gigantic run-on she gave about getting guidance from God. Quoted below, and meanwhile how many of you rationalist/atheist libertarian types are comfortable with all that?

Sarah:"I think, kind of tougher to, um, put our arms around, but allowing America's spirit to rise again by not being afraid to kind of go back to some of our roots as a God fearing nation where we're not afraid to say, especially in times of potential trouble in the future here, where we're not afraid to say, you know, we don't have all the answers as fallible men and women so it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country, so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again. To have people involved in government who aren't afraid to go that route, not so afraid of the political correctness that you know -- they have to be afraid of what the media said about them if they were to proclaim their alliance on our creator."

"- AFAICT, she used a teleprompter for the speech just like almost everyone does..."

I went to double check and there are no teleprompter displays on the stage and nothing at all visible that could have her speech displayed on it when they show the room. She looked down at notes throughout her speech.

Synova, I think you're correct about a teleprompter not being used by Palin for that speech. I was remembering her using one at the GOP convention acceptance speech, so it means she has used them, ergo silly to pick on Obama so much. (And REM other Presidents have used them, Reagan ironically getting the first flack (?) for indulging, and Obama and others of course had to talk without them as in debates and press conferences etc. So that issue is a bit silly.

Like I said, the more important issue is the theocracy part, see that quote again. I don't want another Bush for many reasons, one of which is doing things like invading because he or she thinks it's God's will. Would you like that?

Everyone uses teleprompters from time to time. The reason people got after Obama and started joking about it was because he seemed to use them constantly. Having them set up for a major prepared speech is one thing. Having them set up in the Rose Garden is another.

As for the quote... does it bother me? No, not much. I think the end is "reliance" on our creator, not "alliance"... just a nit. But it was sort of shocking to hear her say it because she's absolutely right that people *avoid* saying anything like that for the reasons that she stated. So when she did say it it was shocking. It was shocking even though I don't disagree.

What she expressed was an essential humility and an acknowledgment that human beings are limited and ought to understand that they are limited.

I think that this is a *very* good thing to keep in mind. Decisions still have to be made, but they need to be made with the understanding that the decision making involved is *necessarily* lacking. The alternative is something like Obama taking forever to finally getting around to making a decision about Afghanistan.

Yes, some Christians claim to know the mind of God and make grand claims about what God wants or intends. Generally, though, that's seen as a doctrinal error, even a rather serious doctrinal error. A call to humility is a good thing, not a bad thing. Understanding human limits and asking for divine help opens a person to other alternatives or possibilities that they might not have thought of or considered. And it does so in a way that doesn't cripple the decision making process in uncertainty.

No, really... what Palin said does not bother me.

Particularly as it was, coupled with repeated calls to focus on fiscal conservatism and small government pledges at home and supporting our allies first abroad. "Social conservatism" just really didn't ever come up.

And you know... in the end... at least people thinking about their relationship to a creator aren't in self-denial about having a religion. I have to prefer that over the faith-based economic ideologies of the left.

I suppose I should say that "social conservatism" didn't come up except in implication grouped with the unnamed other issues of disagreement with candidates who get the fiscal conservatism and small government part right, that ought not keep a person from voting for them.

Good leaders keep it simple. All Sarah Palin has to do anymore is be a normal American and talk like she wants to protect the USA from enemies foreign and domestic. Her life force and sincerity draws the audience in and that message does not frighten anyone away; except of course for the Progressives for whom success of our enemies foreign and domestic is why they even bother to be in politics.

"the Progressives for whom success of our enemies foreign and domestic is why they even bother to be in politics." - If that's the impression Palin and Beck give to their fans, then she is no Christian. Right or wrong about policy, most progressives essentially seek the interests of the majority of the public, versus upper crust. Bearing false witness is not Christian. If you really worry about helping our enemies, note the objective fact (not just claimed motives) that Bush diverting to Iraq mostly ruined our ability to rout Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Nor does she only frighten progressives: many in the GOP find her horrifying, like McCain's own former campaign manager. Much of it is that God stuff: to be imbued with a greater sense of concern yet humbleness from religion is one thing, but she sounds like the Bush-type who projects God's will into her own thoughts.

The cosmopolitan sentiments of (some?) progressives, though... that's a real thing and matters and is part of what I meant when I talked about having a faith-based ideology that isn't understood as a religion and how that is more dangerous in many ways than a person who believes that there is a God who might have ideas about what they should do.

"Success of our enemies" is what comes out the other end of an ideology that values the failure or refusal to determine an "us" or a "them."

I just realized that Palin touched on a similar process, domestically when she said that those in Washington should not lie and pledge to operate in a bipartisan manner when ideologies make bipartisanship on a particular issue impossible. She's right that this erodes trust.

What I just realized is that this fake call to bipartisanship assumes that ideas are irrelevant, even that different ideas don't exist, only sides that can chose to work together or not.

But this isn't true. This insistence that there is no "us" or "them" that the differences in ideology and goals and outlook about life do not exist. They just *aren't*. *Poof!* And when it comes to something like health care reform, it leaves no *substance* to disagree upon, only people choosing to be horrible, probably because of racism.

The fact is that different cultures and ideologies can't simply be ignored as if they are unimportant or are equal to each other or aren't often in essential and unresolvable conflict. And a whole lot of "progressive" ideology seems cosmopolitan in essence, which focuses membership and loyalty on humanity as a whole and values ignoring as unimportant all those pesky ideological difficulties.

Writing something on here hand was not a big deal. Looking at it while answering a question (maybe one she knew in advance) about three things most important to her was bad (she named only two, by the way)

But really when she makes a point of spreading false rumors about obama's intelligence with the teleprompter thing, using written notes to avoid using a teleprompter, and then she gets caught looking at her hand to say what is important to her, that really is a little bad.

The fact that many on this board are still hawking the teleprompter theme for Obama, after his performance with the republicans, unscripted, is astonishing, and mean spirited. Maybe a little crazy.

I will agree that excessive "leveling" and failure to see distinctions is dangerous, and we have to realize we have true enemies out there etc. But it looks like, despite his image Obama does too with all those Predator strikes. He's not really a person of excess or extremes, despite appearance of some of his policies. Most "progressives" are just economic populists suspicious of big business like the tea party people are supposed to be (or are they corporate shills?), so that cultural indulgence of equivalency is not a big thing for them.

Neil B...I have never been a tea party guy. But I can spot talent in Palin. So far she is willing to use it for the same values that I hold. Liberals are our old educated friends that know a lot about knowledge in many interesting subjects. They are the best people to share ideas with. But the Progressives are Saul Alinskyites that dream of the end of life as lived in America since 1828. Why that is a necessity for them still intrigues me. My suspicions are that progressives are a mind control political cult that uses and abuses the weak minded, unlike traditional Christianity that believes 100% in educated strong, free people limited only by observing a truth standard that rules out Marxists, Socialists and Warmists.

Trad', I'm glad you have some regard for liberals - I hope I deserve to fit into that educated bunch who are good to share ideas with. But there is only a tiny fringe of way out "progressives" - most others adopted that name because "liberal" became a put-down and seemed too, yes elitist the way conservatives put it. Remember the "progressive" party of Teddy's time etc? That was anti-corporation, anti-trust and all that. That's what most of them are about.

And many of the TEA people also realize that big finance etc., the Fed and that are not the friends of the public - leftish or rightish public - and so I see a basis for common ground which we need. Even if a conservative I suppose you realize the danger of big money interests which care only for themselves and not the Nation or the Constitution.

Neil B ...I like liberal commenting because it expands my understanding. For example NPR programs alternately anger me and please me because they run some of both points of view. You are on target that I view the manipulation of world capital flows by NYC and London and Shanghai market insiders as no friend of an American that wants a job. How can we keep the low prices from world trade and also keep Americans at work without a War is THE question. Does Obama's promise of begging mercy from the Europeans and the Chinese and the Indians really seem like a winner to you? The need for an American product that can be produced by American workers at a competitive market price is crucial. In the meantime, while the system slowly adjusts, why has the extraction of America's oil, gas and coal been kept illegal at the decision of Congress? There is no answer in the Progressive world view where they go around pretending that CO2 is a poison and that a growing population of free and industrious humans are also a poison to Mother Earth and suggest the killing off two thirds of humanity as a real solution. My God man, that stuff is 1920's Social Darwinism gone wild. Please let us call you a liberal.

OK ... Some people overreact but oil extraction etc. is not right for every single place it can be done, and so on. Just for balance. And although only oddball extremists are for getting rid of people, populations growth does make it proportionately harder to share resources - even if militants exaggerate what would go wrong. Best advice: don't bend over backwards to answer something you think is extreme. That is classic liberal advice. Too bad R party made it into a bad word.

@ Neil B...Sorry for a late reply, I was watching the game. The "militants" you mention also need a quick a reply. The setting of the agenda is how every debate is won or lost. Skilled agenda setting instincts against the Neo Social Darwinists is one place that Palin has a excellent posture that cannot be easily replaced in our world of the wealth corrupted politicos. She has never backed down from a fight against them to make a few quick hundred millions or for herself, like all of today's Democrat leadership still in office and many RINOs. She is like Elliott Ness against the Capone gang redux. Other than that one sine qua non talent, it is true that Sarah will likely never earn her Phd from the Ivy League.

My point was not about Palin's intelligence, but about her dirty insinuation that Obama is not intelligent. I think that the idea that Obama needs to read someone else's words off a teleprompter to seem smart is basically demonstratably untrue at this point, at least to anyone who cares to watch the man speak.

So that is spreading false rumors, and I would call it a sin (false wintess-y) if I thought in exactly those terms, which I do not anymore. I think what she is doing is morally wrong.

the question of whether Palin is intelligent, or if she is unfairly dismissed as being not smart, is different. I'd say on that that there are many kinds of intelligence, really, and she clearly has a lot of talent. (evil genius I'd call it, but talent is true and more neutral. She clearly has some kind of smarts.

But I think I've read or heard most of what she's said publically, and when she is unscripted she seems to mostly say an incoherent jumble of talking points. I do not think she is smart in the classical sense, i.e. understands and creates ideas. I think she is filled with talking points and ideas, but she never says much on her own that seems thoughtful. it could be that she is just not articulate in the moment, you cn be plenty smart and not have the gift of gab. But she des not seem plenty smart, and she seems insecure, addicted to lies and deceit to cover her failings, and all around a mean person.

So that is my thoughts on "there"thanks for the response

Synova said... "But really when she makes a point of spreading false rumors about obama's intelligence with the teleprompter thing,..."

Um...

You know... the sin of spreading false rumors about someone's intelligence?

You really want to go there?

Or is this one of those things where, Palin is supposed to take it because everyone *knows* she's an idiot, so it's not like a *false* rumor or anything...

But suggesting that Obama might not be quite as blindingly brilliant as all that is a vile insult?

I'm sorry if I'm interrupting a conversation, but I feel compelled to point out that Palin's jab at Obama for using a teleprompter is a cheap shot for a couple of reasons. One is that it's lazy shorthand, a verbal wink to everyone who thinks calling him TOTUS says anything meaningful or substantial about his policies or his abilities. She's aiming for the lowest common denominator.

And she's being an obvious hypocrite about it, too (aside from relying on her notes, and not very skillfully.) For example, Palin used a teleprompter when she delivered her nearly incoherent "I quit but I'm not really quitting" speech up here. It was clearly visible in the video posted on the Anchorage Daily News that day. (Their footage showed a different angle than the one broadcast nationally.)

At that time, her use of it seemed notable mostly because it confirmed that she actually wrote out that train wreck of a speech beforehand. Her fans, of course, thought it was simply amazing that she gave such a heartfelt speech off the top of her head (which, to them, was also the reason for the tangled syntax and unclear reasoning).

FWIW, her comments about bipartisanship last night also were interesting because she would not have accomplished what little she did as governor without tremendous help from the Democrats in the Alaska State Legislature--especially with the gas line act she loves taking credit for. Not until McCain plucked her out of our little backwater did she develop her sneer, her overtly folksy persona, and her partisan street cred. Whether she suddenly awoke to her true nature or simply recognized what played best to her audience--well, you can be the judge of that.

You know... I can't help but think that the only way questioning Obama's intelligence is a "dirty insinuation" is if someone truly is *invested* in Obama's intelligence.

And that's weird.

But hey, I get it. When it's Palin we can ignore the "dirty insinuations" and say something vague about there being a variety of intelligences, blah, blah,.. and it's *different*. Because no one is invested in Palin's brilliance.

But with Obama it *matters* because his super smartness was supposed to automagically result in smarter policies and smarter government and all of the *right* decisions.

But the fact of the matter is... even if the guy has a high IQ, he's an idiot. Honest to gawd, doesn't have a clue, idiot. He takes months upon months to make up his mind about Afghanistan and then doesn't understand why the military can't implement his decision over-night. He just goes and *says* to Joe the Plummer that he's going to redistribute wealth, like that's an ordinary thing to say. He disses our long time allies and can't imagine why he shouldn't. He's got a tin ear.

You know what else isn't very smart? Making promises he can't keep. Making promises about things he doesn't know enough about to make a promise about. We can start listing them... DADT, closing Gitmo, pulling us out of Iraq, etc., and then add the ordinary things like putting all legislation on the web for five days before he signs it, openness, transparency, making promises concerning the behavior of independent insurance companies and doctors that he has no control over and can't make promises about that he can keep.

This isn't *smart*... it's *dumb*.

No matter what his IQ. The man simply isn't smart in ways that matter. I'm sorry if this upsets your apple-cart.

But in the end, it's not his lack of intelligence that causes problems. It's his failure to understand leadership principles. Calling him an idiot and questioning his intelligence and making fun of the teleprompter aren't heavy duty criticisms. They aren't "dirty insinuations."

"FWIW, her comments about bipartisanship last night also were interesting because she would not have accomplished what little she did as governor without tremendous help from the Democrats in the Alaska State Legislature--especially with the gas line act she loves taking credit for."

Her comments about bipartisanship last night were absolutely in line with her history of bipartisanship in Alaska.

In case you weren't actually listening.

She didn't say people shouldn't work together, she said they shouldn't lie about intending to work in a bipartisan way on issues where there wasn't common ground.

She repeatedly suggested that Democrats or others might have some of the same ideas and everyone should be open to that and open to supporting any candidate or politician (if you listened to the whole thing.) She rejected an automatic partisanship.

But she was right that making a bipartisan pledge on an issue where both parties differed so widely that it was not possible, leads people to distrust everything else.

Putting together the pipeline deal in Alaska was something that *everyone* wanted. It was a bipartisan project in concept and from the start. Getting everyone to work together is still a great deal of work and takes some skill with people, but everyone is in basic agreement before it starts.

The health care reform bill is not even remotely something that everyone wants, not in the Hillary Care version and not in some expanded government control of private industry version. Promising a bipartisan effort is a lie.

It's like, say, an actress says she won't do nude scenes. And then the director says, sure, that's fine, so how do you want to do this nude scene? And she says she's not doing a nude scene. And the director comes back and says he did *his* part to work with her, why is she obstructionist, he even offered to give her input into how the scene was filmed, what is wrong with her anyway.

That's what "bipartisanship" is in relation to the health care bill.

And Palin was 100% right to point that out. She has that history of working with Democrats to get things done in Alaska. She knows that only works when it's something that *is* a bipartisan issue.

"And many of the TEA people also realize that big finance etc., the Fed and that are not the friends of the public - leftish or rightish public - and so I see a basis for common ground which we need. Even if a conservative I suppose you realize the danger of big money interests which care only for themselves and not the Nation or the Constitution."

I think that the point at which people tend to part ways is when "big money, corporations, etc, are not our friends" forks off to "and government is the solution" on one side, and "government invariably makes the problem worse" on the other side.

Which is something that seems illiberal, the government solution... very illiberal to think that government can manage individuals and manage business and do so well, and efficiently, and morally.

Perhaps it does go back to that area of distrust of big money, the common ground... and that is that some people distrust the *money* while other people distrust the *big*.

I hear enough people suggest that simply taking away a profit motive will result in efficiency and fairness, that I think I'm not far off on that.

I have to respond to this repeated talking point that Obama somehow "destroyed" the Republicans at their retreat, or that his performance somehow showed that he's some sort of rhetorical genius.

1) He didn't say almost anything new at all. All he did was repeat, over and over and over, again the very same talking points that he's been repeating for almost 2 years. If he hasn't gotten that stuff memorized flat - or at least the overall outlines - by now, then there would be reason to check out if he had ANY intelligence, let alone some sort of superior variety of same.

2) To the extent that he DID say anything new, it was to make himself a liar. For the last two years, all that he and Pelosi and Reid have been telling people is that Republicans have no ideas, that they haven't put any solutions on the table, and that people should simply follow him blindly because his was the only possible solution that had been proposed.

Well, he called himself a liar over and over again during the course of the afternoon when he was forced to admit over and over again that not only had the Republicans put forth solutions, but that - even as he was telling the general public that Republicans were the "Party of NO" - he had been briefed on the specifics of many of those proposals as well.

Is calling yourself a liar and being exposed as a fraud really some sort of coded WIN for Obama? If so, it's the weirdest sort of win possible because in any other reality it's called LOSING.

3) Ask yourself one question: if Obama really "destroyed" the House Republicans at their retreat, then why is the White House so unwilling to do it again even though the House Republicans have said they'd welcome an opportunity to do it again. Generally speaking, "winners" don't run away with their tails between their legs. So why is the White House behaving like a whipped dog while the House Republicans are left saying "Bring it on!"?

4) Obama has shown himself to be either unable, or unwilling, to change course even in the face of obvious evidence that his policies are failing - not only in practice, but in the minds of the voting public. He has played a central role in 3 major races of incredible signifance: 2 governorships which will play a vital role in Congressional reapportionment, and the Massachussetts Senate seat which put the kibosh on his signature policy. An inability to adapt to changing circumstances isn't the signature of an agile and fertile mind, it's the sign of fossilized thinking. And out of this we are supposed to believe that Obama is some sort of deep thinker who somehow transcends the ordinary thought processes of mere mortals?

When you're repeating DNC talking points, you really should ask yourself if they make any sort of real-world sense before you take ownership of obviously ridiculous statements by repeating them uncritically.

Synova, anyone who thinks the big money problems would just take care of themselves if G got out of the way is either naive, or a tool. Yes, government can make things worse but that's no excuse to let the problem just sit, it will not improve on its own and never has.BTW I wish you'd address the issue I raised at your blog about the SCOTUS ruling, where you ignored the major consideration about *who* the speech rules were applied to: corporations, not real people. If the individuals in that company want to make contributions they always could on their own. Read my comment.

Jim: the HCR Bill did take some R ideas into itself, ironically in many ways it is like "Romney Care"! The reason people complain about the Repubs is they keep voting against everything, and hold up appointments just for spite or to get favors etc. As for Obama's policies "failing" it is not even a rational label when it's whether people want the Bill to pass or not now - it isn't instituted yet, it is not therefore a "policy" than can be judged in retrospect to have failed. And finally, do you really think this mess we have already in health care is OK? It is absolutely not the best in the world, and why did *every other* industrial nation go for national health care?

traditionalguy: how can you believe Palin is really that for real and honest about the public interest and against money corruption? Check around. She wouldn't be for cap gains rate being lower than work-earned income if she was a real populist: her position is typical of a big money tool. (BTW real help for investment would only cover start-up capital, not the useless trading afterwards.)

Which leads right into: if you think government tends to mess up and not serve public interest (?), then expanding right of corporate fake-persons to spend on politics would make that even worse. You could argue that it was a matter of principle (even thought that's not a great principle when applied to something chartered for other purposes), but then accept responsibility for the lousy practical outcome as a result of ideological purity.

It may be true that concentrating on Iraq for a few years harmed the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (but I wouldn't agree that it has “mostly ruined” it; we still have the ability and opportunity to recover from earlier setbacks, just as we did in Iraq). It may be though that Al Qaeda and the Taliban would still have managed to regroup in their sanctuaries in Pakistan and come back as they have in Afghanistan in any case.

Meanwhile, however, Al Qaeda made a determined effort to win in Iraq, declaring it the “central front” in their jihad against the West, and fielding large numbers of fighters and suicide bombers in the attempt — where they got smashed and thousands and thousands of their warriors slaughtered there for their efforts — greatly damaging their “strong horse” reputation worldwide, as large numbers of potential jihadist recruits certainly noticed.

Now you say that was obviously a mistake? I certainly disagree, not only as a result of the smashing defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but because Iraq is now liberated from its Baathist tyrannical yoke; as a result of the Iraqi people's sour experience with Al Qaeda, somewhat innoculated against the Islamists; and now possessed of the opportunity to make of their country what they will, free of megalomaniac rulers.

Michael, it is true that AQ got into Iraq but that was due to our invading, you've got a "self-fulfilling prophecy" problem. Note also, our being there allowed recruiting for AQ and intermingling of Sunni/Shia struggles with their game. I grant, we may have well had to do something big about Iraq eventually, but we should have finished up better in Afghanistan first. In that sense it was a mistake, then not to wait until maybe 2004 to make a squeeze.

About government in general, and which follows up about Iraq: it is also ironic to say "government makes things worse" and yet to trust it can competently pull of nation building, pull off general law enforcement but curiously (and so conveniently for some people) not to be able to do financial "law enforcement." Now I agree, the maneuvering of interest groups can make such regulation just rearrange advantages etc. which is worse. But that doesn't prove it's always wrong to do, isn't worth trying etc. One could make excuses then for not doing any other functions either. I think this is all standard centrism.

As for the thread topic: I don't think it's all that big deal about Sarah's hand notes, Obama's TOTUS and mispronunciation, Quayle's misspellings etc. This is just silly stuff that people use to make fun of the other side.

"doctors resort to primitive means of writing some quick notes on our hand" - You Sir need to get your act together. You do that while you're in front of a patient and look at your hand for little "reminders" you'll look incompitent and lose your credibility. There are times when it's more appropriate to jot things done for reference but this wasn't one of them, no matter how trivial the notes were. It seems as though excuse after excuse is made in Palin's defense everytime she puts her shovel in the ground for some more dirt. Everyone who's comparing her to their spouses or whatever else need a reality check! She's not your spouse and more is expected from her with her position in politics. She is not doing an everyday activity like grocery shopping. I would be dissapointed if one of my professors had notes on their hand, I don't care what political affiliation he/she is. They stand there and have to answer off the wall questions day to day and never know what to expect - with NO notes on their hands or anywhere else to refer to. And as far as the notes during lectures, a lecture is far more intricate than Q and A from your supporters at a rally.